As A Swiss citizen I feel strongly disgusted and repulsed by the fact that a Swiss TV Channel (TSR) will glorify A terrorist Organization such as Hizbullah as we normally would only expect to see on Arab Islamic Jihad website Videos, and channels as such as Al Jazeera. Freedom of Expression ends then when it encroaches onto the legal rights of others in a democracy, and there when the truth and facts are intentionally distorted and documented in a misleading none factual fashion, that as in this very case, in detail intentionally ends up and supports terrorists.

My 4 concerns below

1st concern)
You present Hizbullah as simply a friendly Resistance Group Yet: European legislators branded the radical Lebanese Hizbullah group a “terrorist” organization. Hizbullah (Arabic for “Party of God”) is an umbrella organization of various radical Islamic Shi’ite groups and organizations which receives substantial financial and philosophical support from Iran, as well as from Syria.The name Hizbullah comes from a Koranic verse promising triumph to those who join the Party of God. Hizbullah was founded in 1982 in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley by Shia clergyman educated in Iran.

In the early 1980s, Hizbullah popularized suicide bombings as an effective terrorist tactic. In April 1983, Hizbullah allegedly blew up a van filled with explosives in front of the U.S. embassy in Beirut killing 58 Americans and Lebanese.
Then in October 1983, Hizbullah was responsible for a truck bomb that detonated in the U.S. Marine barracks killing 241 American peacekeepers, and a simultaneous truck bombing at the French barracks that killed 58 French soldiers.

Hizbullah also carried out a number of kidnappings of Westerners in Lebanon during the mid 1980s, in which they executed the hostages or traded them for money or weapons. In addition to Lebanon, Hizbullah’s security apparatus operates in Europe, North and South America, East Asia, and other parts of the Middle East, and it is believed to be responsible for a number of other high profile terrorist attacks.

In 1985 Hizbullah members hijacked TWA flight 847 and held the 39 Americans on board hostage for weeks. In addition, the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Argentina and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires are attributed to Hizbullah. Furthermore, in June 1996, Hizbullah allegedly attacked the Khobar Towers housing complex in Dharan, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S servicemen and wounding hundreds of others.

Current Hizbullah Goals:
Hezbullah’s stated objectives include the establishment of a Shiite theocracy in Lebanon, the destruction of Israel, and the elimination of Western influences from the Middle East. Over the last 20 plus years, Hizbullah has not only professionalized its military capabilities but also joined Lebanon’s political process and enmeshed itself into the social fabric of Lebanese society.

Facts you ignored:
The intentional constant attacks against Israel – and the none compliance with UN Resolutions in the past and now !
Lebanon/Hizbullah performed an act of war against the Sovereign State of Israel ! It was/is not as You make it look in Your video, AN Israeli Aggression – Nor the want to occupy Lebanon . None of the Kind.

On the morning of July 12, 2006, Hizbullah terrorists crossed the blue line border from Lebanon to Israel and attacked an Israeli army patrol, killing 3 and capturing Ehud Goldwasser, 31, from Nahariya, and Eldad Regev, 26, from Kiryat Motzkin. An additional soldier died the following day and several were killed when a tank hit a mine, while pursuing the captors. At the very same time, Hizbullah began a series of rocket attacks on northern Israel. This incident was apparently timed to coincide with the meeting of the G-8, which was to examine the issue of the Iranian nuclear development program.

Facts you ignored:
Lebanon Forces are obliged since years to implement Security Council Resolution 1559 and 1680 …. which would have prevented any further clashes and the last war that was intended and started by Hizbullah

Hizbullah and the Lebanese government are to return the kidnapped soldiers and to disarm the Hizbullah as Israel had demanded, and as required by UN Security Council Resolution 1559 and 1680.

However, the Lebanese army has never and will not now collect Hizbullah arms or remove Hizbullah from southern Lebanon nor assure proper return of the Two Soldiers that were kidnapped. Neither do Lebanese now respect Council Resolution 1701 in letter nor spirit.

2nd concern)Your glorification of Soha Bechara who is in fact not A Resistance member, but a confirmed criminal, who was ready to perform a Suicide Attack against a Lebanese General – which is what one calls an intentional act of terrorism.

Come to think of it:
Soha Bechara’s book Resistante appears to be banned in Switzerland but is sold freely in Paris in Arab Islamist circles as a terrorist manual propaganda. – Yet you, Temps Present TSR, takes it upon herself to glorify Soha Bechara with exactly what she says in her book? How does A criminal, an assassin, a person believing in terror acts, NOT as stated an Ex-Freedom fighter, get a permit to stay in Switzerland?

Souha Fawaz Bechara (born 1967), commonly known as Souha Bechara or Soha Bechara, is a Lebanese woman who, at the age of twenty one, attempted to assassinate General Antoine Lahad of the SLA. Lahad survived the assassination Whereas Bechara was quickly arrested by the Lebanese army. Soha Bechara, as we can see on the video from the TSR, does NOT regret her suicide attack attempt against Lahad and her criminal terror activities one bit …. but is still right here in Switzerland active in her Radical views and believes.

Soha Bechara and your film were trying to claim her innocent belonging only to the Communist Party in Lebanon: But the truth of this so called innocent Communist party was intentionally avoided in your propaganda film – yet proper research from Your Team … would have brought different results.

FACTS:
The Syrian use of the Lebanese communist party for terrorism.

Asad relies on three types of organizations: Palestinian Organizations. After being pushed out of Lebanon in 1982, many factions of the PLO took refuge in Syria, where Asad brought them under the banner of the Palestine National Salvation Front (PNSF).

The PNSF includes As-Sa’iqa, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (run by George Habash), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (Ahmad Jibril), the Democratic Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Na’if Hawatma), and Abu Musa’s Fatah dissidents.

Other groups include the Arab Organization of the 15th of May for the Liberation of Palestine (Naji ‘Alush) and Fatah – Revolutionary Command (Abu Nidal).

The Syrians wooed Abu Nidal from his Iraqi patrons at the end of 1979 or early 1980, since which time he has been one of Asad’s most active agents, conducting operations in almost every country of West Europe and many in the Middle East. He seems to have moved on to Libya in early 1987.

Arab Organizations. The Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP), founded in 1932, enthusiastically approves of Asad because his goals coincide with its own plans to establish a single Syrian state covering the present territories of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan. Syrian backing permits the SSNP to control a portion of Lebanese territory to the south of Tripoli.

Together with the Ba’th Party of Lebanon and the Lebanese Communist Party, it carried out nearly all of the fifteen suicide attacks against Israeli and South Lebanon Army troops that occurred in 1985.

Other groups include the (Druze) Progressive Socialist Party, the (Shi’i) Amal, the (Sunni) Nasirites, the Lebanese Revolutionary Brigades, the Lebanese Armed Revolutionary Fraction (FARL), Arab Egypt, the Committee for the Defense of Democratic Liberties in Jordan the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Somalia, the Eritrean Liberation Front, and Polisario.

Iraqi media have portrayed the Islamic Jihad Organization in Lebanon as a “cover for [Syria’s] political crimes,” and this is at least partially true.

Some details about the Syrian-sponsored suicides became known in August 1987 when an Egyptian, ‘Ali ‘Abd ar-Rahman Wahhaba, gave himself up to the South Lebanon Army, an Israeli-backed force.

Wahhaba told the following story: he went to Lebanon in the early 1980s looking for work; under repeated torture, he was compelled in 1984 to join a mukhabarat-backed group, Arab Egypt. In 1986 he underwent a two-week training course in weapons and explosives at a camp run by the chief sergeant major of Syrian intelligence in the Biqa’ Valley.

In January 1987 Wahhaba “was taken to Syrian television studios in Damascus, where he was given a prepared script. He was filmed saying he is going to commit suicide of his own free will in an attack against the Zionist enemy.” ‘Abdallah Ahmar, second in command in the Syrian Ba’th party, oversaw the filming; later, Gen. Ghazi Kan’an, the head of the mukhabarat in Lebanon, personally sent him off on a mission and blessed his undertaking. In the end, Wahhaba did not explode the 11 kilograms of TNT hidden in his jacket, but gave himself up to the South Lebanon Army.

Lebanese leaders who resist Asad’s wishes find themselves targeted by Asad. Kamal Junblatt, the Druze and leftist chief in Lebanon, was warned to silence his outspoken criticism of the Syrian military presence in Lebanon by the assassination of his sister in May 1976; he did not pay heed, so he too was killed ten months later. Fearful that Bashir Jumayyil would draw the Lebanese government too close to Israel, Damascus had the SSNP kill him in September 1982.

In February 1988 security men found half a kilo of sophisticated explosives on a plane used by Bashir’s brother Amin Jumayyil, the president of Lebanon. Immediately after the discovery, Syrian intelligence officers at the Beirut airport moved in, seized the explosive, and refused to let it go.

Lebanese journalists have also suffered Syrian violence. Salim al-Lawzi, publisher of the important Lebanese magazine Al-Hawadith, had acquired embarrassing information about internal conditions in Syria; in response, Syrian agents tortured and killed him in February 1980. A few months later, Riyad Taha, president of the Lebanese Publishers Association was gunned down from a car.

Rafik Hariri is only the latest victim of Syrian assassination tactics designed to subjugate Lebanon. Syria stationed its commanding supervision at the Ministry of Defense at Yerze, while organizing its ubiquitous security and intelligence apparatus (mukhabarat) under Colonel Ghazi Kana’an who became the personal notorious manifestation of the occupation regime. He was later replaced by Syrian military intelligence headed by General Rostum Ghazala.

In short order the Syrians confirmed that, as Hannah Arendt wrote, “terror is the essence of totalitarian domination Political assassination was its most dreadful form attested by the murders of noted national leaders, like Kamal Junblatt, the Druze head of the Progressive Socialist Party in 1977, Bashir Gemayel, commander of the Lebanese Forces and president-elect of Lebanon in 1982, and Rene Mo’awed, President of Lebanon in 1989. Religious dignitaries, such as Father Philippe Abou-Sleimane in Aley and Sheikh Ahmed Assaf in 1982, and Sheikh Hassan Khaled the Sunni Mufti of Lebanon in 1989, were also disposed of.

Well-known journalists like Selim Al-Lowzi in 1977 and Riyad Taha, president of the Lebanese Press Association, in 1980 became victims of the Syrian security hit squads. Certain sources claim that the assassination of Dany Chamoun, son of former Lebanese president Camille Chamoun, in October 1990 was the work of the Syrians with Lebanese collaboration. The attempted assassinations of Pierre Gemayel, founder of the Kata’ib (Phalange movement) and father of Bashir and Amin, Raymond Edde the National Bloc leader, Camille Chamoun former president and head of the Liberal Party, and the Greek Catholic Patriarch Maximos V. Hakim, should be noted in this context.

3rd concern)
regards your film is the none factual interview of Human Rights Watch. Known to be constantly Anti- Israel

These links are self-explanatory and IF the TSR would have been at all factual and would have researched the issue and or at least would have for the sake of Balanced Reporting would have brought experts from ALL sides – the film could have been a more none biased document:

Ithe TSR would have wanted to be accurate and would have done Their Research,
They would have noticed; That in fact the HRW by insisting that: There was NO proof of Human Shields,
Is solely a HRW attempt to whitewash Hizbullah, and NONE factual: The Proof of facts are available to those who in fact search for Truth

In words – pictures – and videos.

PROOF:
Civilian shields in Lebanon Many of the missiles recently fired at Israel were stored and launched from or near private homes, commandeered by Hizbullah terrorists wishing to shield their actions behind civilians in order to thwart Israel’s response.

UN and Hezbollah are working together – Photo of Kofi Annan in Beirut June 2000 thanking Nasrallah,http://www.israel-wat.com/kofi.jpg
Who undermined Lebanon’s Sovereignty? United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan

In the picture (in above link) taken in Beirut in 2000, Kofi Annan is thanking Nasrallah, head of the terror group Hezbollah
for Maintaining law and order in the south of Lebanon. So, in 2000 Kofi Annan acknowledged: that the terror group Hezbollah was responsible for Maintaining law and order in southern Lebanon, but it is now ISRAEL which is undermining the country’s sovereignty????

Source: Al-Ahram, Weekly On-line, Issue 487, 22-18 June 2000

My Conclusion:

The Federal Law on Radio and Television (RTVG, 1991) describes in greater detail, the obligations and duties of the Media:

Temps Present TSR has shamefully disregarded it’s obligations to the Public and the Swiss Taxpayer who in fact has to pay for such shameful propaganda.

My question is: Would the TSR therefore also glorify, Ali Fallahian who is charged with masterminding the assassination of Kazem Rajavi, a renowned Iranian opposition leader, near Geneva ( in Coppet) in April 1990; In the same nauseating nonfactual mold as Soha Bechara? I would NOT be surprised one bit.

I vividly remember; In the 70’s and 80’s another important task was to prevent the other Swiss viewer organisation, the SFRV, to undermine the SRG with right-oriented policies.The SFRV (Swiss TV and radio association – Schweizer Fernseh-und Radiovereinigung or as the public says “Hoferclub”) accused the SRG to be “Left TV” ……..

The question is …. is it getting actually worse with Swiss TV? It looks like.

Comments

Mrs Goldwater,
Excellent rebutal to that discusting piece that the Swiss television aired.I have visited several times Lebanon,the last being precisely this summer during the war so i have sufficient knowledge of the place and people to hold a (firm)opinion on what happened over there.Having been obliged to leave Beirut after 15 days of conflict,i came back to France and had to endure the most repulsive kind of disinformation on TV,radio and newspapers.I was appaled by the level of mediocrity and lies that most journalists had to offer to the gullible audiences.I was witness from day one of what happened, did move around,talked to people therefore could give a “on the scene” validation,well…i still could see on the faces of the people with whom i was talking a kind of embarrassment!!!!
The level of bias during this event has reached proportions i would not haved imagine.

Even a cursory perusal of the Arab press, will reveal that Hizbullah’s status in Lebanon has changed for the worse, as many Lebanese come to the rather shocking realization that the south of their country, unknown to them, had in fact been transformed into an Iranian and Syrian launching pad against Israel posing an existential threat to their own livelihoods and to their entire country. Hizbullah is now on the defensive, trying to protect its political assets against a more assertive Lebanese domestic majority, that seems more determined than ever to contain Hizbullah’s “state within a state,” so that they are not drawn again into a destructive war with Israel, without as much as a word of consultation.

Many in Lebanon, especially non-Shi’ites, but also some important Shi’ite spokespersons, are calling for an end to the armed phase of Hizbullah’s development and its integration into the Lebanese political system, like all other political parties, lest further provocation of Israel will expose Lebanon to even greater devastation in the future. In other words, they are demanding the disarming of Hizbullah.

Muna Fayyad, a Shi’ite professor at the University of Lebanon, and the Mufti of Tyre, Sayyid Ali al-Amin, for example, both questioned the right of Hizbullah to bring disaster on the Shi’ites of Lebanon, by dragging them into an ill considered adventure they never wanted, in the interests of a foreign power like Iran, about whom they were never consulted.

NASRALLAH NOW has to contend with his newly constructed image as the destroyer of Lebanon rather than its protector, as he himself regularly claimed before the war, as a main justification for the very existence of his militia. His recent interview (explaining that he would not have ordered the abduction of the two Israeli soldiers had he expected such a ferocious Israeli response) is indicative of this new predicament.

Arab commentators are considerably less impressed with Nasrallah’s strategic genius than some of their Israeli counterparts seem to be in their moments of self-critical excess. They question the wisdom of his decision-making, as they wryly ridicule his claims of victory. A poll conducted in Lebanon in late August revealed that two thirds of the non-Shi’ite public believed that Hizbullah had actually been defeated in the war.

Hazim Saghiya, writing in Al-Hayat, questioned whether victory could be celebrated on the ruins of Lebanon by a leader who had to remain in hiding. Another commentator in Al-Hayat, Hasan Haydar, compared Nasrallah’s interview of apology to Egyptian president Gamal Nasser’s admission of defeat in 1967. The Arabs, he noted, were still paying for the defeat in 1967, and he wondered for how long the Lebanese and the Arabs would be paying for Nasrallah’s “ill-considered ‘victory.'”

Abd al-Mun’im Sa’id, the Director of the Al-Ahram’s Center for Political and Strategic Studies, urged the Arabs to follow Israel’s example and set up a commission of inquiry to establish how Nasrallah could have dragged Lebanon into war without the country and the home front having being at all prepared. He dismissed Nasrallah’s contention that preparation of the home front was the responsibility of the state, arguing that the state could hardly prepare for a war about which it had no advance knowledge. As opposed to Israeli journalists, who tended to glorify Nasrallah’s credibility, Abd al-Mun’im questioned why Hizbullah had failed to fire its long-range rockets after Israel had repeatedly bombed Beirut, even though Nasrallah had vowed to do so. And what about the relative ineffectiveness of the short range rockets? The damage they caused was limited, and a significant proportion of the Israeli casualties were actually Arabs.

ALL OF the above have emboldened the Lebanese government to deploy its army in the South, which it had not done for over 30 years, and to accept the stationing of a more robust international force there as well. Neither of these had hitherto been acceptable to Hizbullah. These forces will not disarm Hizbullah, which will no doubt make every effort to rearm and replenish its depleted stocks. All the same, they do serve the purpose of reasserting the sovereignty of the Lebanese state in all of its territory. This in turn adds to all the other factors seeking to reduce Hizbullah’s freedom of action to operate militarily against Israel from the South.

None of this would have happened had it not been for the severe damage Israel inflicted upon Hizbullah’s civilian, political and military infrastructure. The civilian backbone of Hizbullah, the Shi’ite community of Lebanon, has incurred heavy loss of life and enormous property damage, which will take years to repair. The period of reconstruction might not be free of criticism for the leadership that led the community to this disaster.

And once rehabilitated would the Shi’ites of Beirut and the South be ready to endanger everything and go through their recent ordeal all over again, for what Hizbullah might feel required to do in the service of Iran and Syria? Moreover, a new Shi’ite middle class has emerged during the last generation and they are eager to integrate into the mainstream if Lebanese politics, something they might not be able to achieve as long as Hizbullah is perceived to be serving the interests of foreign powers.

IN DIRECT military terms Hizbullah’s losses were heavy and will not be easily replenished either. Key installations and command and control centers were totally destroyed in the Dahiya area of Southern Beirut and in the South of the country. Fortified positions, bunkers and stores in close proximity to the border with Israel have been demolished, and it is highly unlikely that Israel will allow their reconstruction under any circumstances.

The organization lost between a quarter to a third of its fighting men. Bravado aside, in numerous encounters Hizbullah fighters fled the field of battle, leaving their equipment behind, to avoid direct confrontation with Israeli ground forces.

Much of Hizbullah’s long and medium range rocketry has been destroyed. They still have large stocks of the short-range rockets, which were the great majority of the over 4,000 rockets fired during the war into Northern Israel. But their effectiveness is limited. It is true that the North of the country was almost brought to a standstill and the trauma of hundreds of thousands of Israelis in shelters or living as internal refuges in other parts of the country will not be forgotten. But in terms of loss of life the thousands of rockets were less effective than a pair of suicide bombers.

The Iranian strategic outpost that had been built up for future use against Israel has been defanged, at least for the meantime. It must have cost hundreds of millions to construct and has been lost prematurely, spent not very effectively and not at a time of Iran’s choosing. Moreover if intended to deter Israel from taking action, it achieved quite the opposite result.

Hizbullah, at this stage, is observing the cease-fire. They do not want a second round now. Nasrallah needs a breather, and has no choice but to accept the hitherto unacceptable in the form of the restoration of Lebanese state sovereignty to the South. The euphoria in the Arab media has also subsided. The “rabbits and mice” have left the shelters and it is the Lebanese and Hizbullah who must now survey the damage wrought unto them. Nasrallah’s references to Israel as a society as flimsy as “cobwebs” seem somewhat less appropriate from the ruins of South Beirut.

AN EGYPTIAN commentator, Ali al-Ibrahim, noted recently that the Arabs had learned to differentiate between victories on television and real victories in the field. How long will it take the Israelis to do likewise?

Israel’s achievements in the war should not be underestimated.
Whether these achievements of the war prove lasting or not is another question.

Can the Lebanese led by Fuad Seniora’s government build on the new political realities that the war has created? Will they be able to withstand the pressure that is bound to come from the Iran-Syria-Hizbullah axis that will seek to undo the consequences of the war and reestablish the status quo ante? Only time will tell, but these are questions that would not even have been asked had it not been for the war against Hizbullah.

By Omar Raad,
Ya Libnan Volunteer
Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah emerged from hiding during Friday’s rally to declare a “divine, historic and strategic victory” over Israel. His speech focused on firing up opposition to the government and resisting disarmament.

The irony of it all is the very location Nasrallah selected to host his “victory” rally. In Dahyie, the bombed out suburbs of Beirut that suffered seemingly never-ending air strikes from the ruthless Israeli Defense Force.

To claim “victory” over the graves of those murdered in Dahiye, where Hizbullah was helpless in defending against the daily F-16 bombardments, is an insult to the deceased and an insult to the intelligence of the Lebanese people.

In an attempt to rally support for the controversial attack instigated by Hezbollah, Nasrallah did a disservice to his country and dishonor to the 1,200+ killed in his war by celebrating “victory” on the very land where so many lives were needlessly taken less than 6 weeks ago. Hizbullah are viewed by many to be exploiting the deceased in the bombed out area by turning it into a tour ground.

“National Unity”

The very same man who needed Lebanon’s government to negotiate an end to the conflict has come out of hiding to beat his chest and discredit the government. In a speech riddled with contradictions, Nasrallah made every attempt to present Lebanon’s Prime Minister and his allies in a weak light.

“The current government cannot protect, unite and reconstruct Lebanon,” Nasrallah said, adding “a strong state is built with the formation of a government of national unity.”

Ironically, it is the government who should be credited for rallying world support for Lebanon. Siniora gathered $940 million at the donors conference. Siniora offered $40,000 in support to each household impacted by the war. Hizbullah initially vowed to rebuild the destroyed areas, then ran into financial issues and had to call on its big brother Iran for financial support.

Nasrallah even admitted there is a real political crisis in Lebanon and urged all Lebanese not to transform such a problem into a sectarian crisis.

However the Hizbullah chief went on to make a comment that goes against any pretense of “national unity” by posing an open threat: “I will not tolerate any insults to my people.”

Nasrallah continued to boast that his group will not give up its arms in a weak Lebanese state incapable of defending itself from the threat of Israel.

Nasrallah claimed, “the resistance is the one that shielded Lebanon from civil war.” Ironic as the rally itself largely divides the Lebanese people, and practically calls for the overthrow of the government.

“No army in the world can dismantle Hizbullah”

As his speech unfolded, Nasrallah’s “victory” rally became more of a self-gratitude rally, patting himself and his militia on the back for all the positive they have brought upon Lebanon. Nasrallah made his first public appearance since the war started on July 12, despite risks to himself and more importantly the crowd’s safety.

Nasrallah said “Hizbullah is now stronger than it was before July 12.” He continued to claim that, “[Hizbullah] has more than 20,000 rockets” and that “no army in the world can dismantle Hizbullah and their arsenal.”

A more appropriate locale for the “victory” rally would have been Bint Jbeil in Southern Lebanon, where Hizbullah stood it’s ground against the Israeli army, where the United Nations security force stand today, along with the Lebanese Army, to protect Lebanon’s southern border. That would have also placed Nasrallah and his supporters much closer to the threat of a possible Israeli assassination.